The actress decided to take the preventative measure after genetic testing determined that she had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer.
Now, Jolie is a movie star married to another movie star, so the decision to undergo an expensive procedure did not deter her like it will many women in the United States.
Not the mastectomy. Insurance usually covers that if the patient presents such risks. No, the expensive procedure is the initial genetic testing. And the Supreme Court might be able to do something about that in the next couple of months…
* Who is this really protecting? Do women really need someone to tell us we can’t date this guy? Judging by an unscientific sample of good women dating assholes, kind of. [Feministing]
* Angelina’s lawyer self-deprecates; Angelina doesn’t disagree with his bone-headedness; even Jon Stewart is not immune to her charms. [Legal Profession Blog]
* ABC and Fox look the same to me right now. [BreitBart]
* If 22-year-old graduates with little (if any) teaching experience are fortunate enough to get a coveted, resume- and Ivy-worthy job with Teach for America, they will get health benefits — plus a free pass to say things like “I found my fellow teachers intelligent, caring and effective” and “I have no idea why so many low-income parents make sacrifices to send their kids to private schools” (to peers who did indeed survive public schools) — before bailing for law school. [Citizen-Times]
* And because I am grateful to live in the free world, I encourage everyone to voice his or her opinions whenever given the chance. Of course, these bloggers do so with full disclosure of their identities in the face of harsh political consequences, but we can’t help that we’re cowardly, coddled, self-obsessed risk-averse lawyers living in the U.S. [All Africa]
* It’s that time of the year, when you yet again resolve to no longer be an attorney. You have one more chance to make this same futile resolution when Chinese New Year rolls around. [The Complete Lawyer]
* Any food substance that sustains armies and people still living in Y2K bunkers deserves nothing less than a full-on defense of its rights. You go, Hormel. [Likelihood of Confusion]
* Healthy parenting or affirmative action? I We wonder if little Shiloh will turn out like that other token biological celebrity offspring, SatchelRonan Seamus (or just another needy, rich, hot girl, whose mommy never loved her). [Hot Gossip at MSN Entertainment]
* Darwinism resurfaces, and thank God, because I really hate tiny dogs. [St. Petersburg Times]
* Bonus season may be behind us, but we still have money on our minds. [May It Please the Court]
* I am open to all genres of TV shows, as you may know. But this? Almost makes me long for the days of Ally McBeal. [QuizLaw]
Angelina Jolie may soon be defending a lawsuit — and not from Jennifer Aniston alleging alienation of affection. Reuters reports:
A Cambodian charity threatened on Wednesday to sue Angelina Jolie for breach of contract, saying the Hollywood star had reneged on a promise to give $1.5 million over five years to wildlife conservation.
Some of you may recall, from first-year Contracts, that a promise to make a charitable contribution may be enforceable without consideration (under certain circumstances).
How worried should Jolie be about this possible legal action?
“I have been asking Jolie and her lawyer to give me an appropriate answer, but so far no answer,” [Cambodian Vision in Development head] Mounh Sarath told Reuters from the western town of Battambang.
“Now I give her one week and if there is still no answer I will a file suit in the local court of Battambang.”
“The local court of Battambang”? Angelina, watch out!
No, seriously. That court is probably more friendly to plaintiffs — and less sympathetic to defendants with deep pockets — than a state trial court in Mississippi.
(We have not addressed the issue of jurisdiction. But given how Angelina likes to cavort through developing nations — including but not limited to Cambodia, birthplace of her adopted son, Maddox — we think that adequte contacts exist.) Cambodian Charity Threatens Actress Jolie with Lawsuit [Reuters]
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past six years. You can reach them by email: [email protected].
Since late last year, things have been booming in Hong Kong / China in cap markets, especially Hong Kong IPOs. M&A deal flow has recently been getting a bit stronger as well. Although one can’t predict such things with any certainty, all signs are pointing to a banner entire 2014 for the top end US corporate and cap markets practices in Hong Kong / China. This is not really new news, as its been the feeling most in the market have had for a few months now and things continue to look good.
The head of our Asia practice, Evan Jowers, has been in Hong Kong for about 10 days a month (with trips every other month to both Shanghai and Bejing) for the past 7 months, and spending most of his time there meeting with senior US hiring partners at just about all the major US and UK firms there, as well as prospective candidates at all associate levels and partner levels, and when in the US, Evan works Asia hours and is regularly on the phone with such persons, as our the other members of our Asia team. Our Yuliya Vinokurova is in Hong Kong every other month and Robert is there about 5 times a year as well. While we have a solid Asia team of recruiters, Evan Jowers will spend at least some time with all of our candidates for Asia position. We have had long standing relationships, and good friendships in some cases, with hiring partners and other senior US partners in Asia for 8 years now.
The evolution of relationships between the genders continues. Currently, in law firms, there is an interesting conundrum; balancing the desire for a gender-blind workplace where “the best lawyer gets the work and advances” and the reality of navigating the complicated maze created by the fact that, in general, men and women do possess differences in their work styles. These variations impact who they work with, how they work, how they build professional connections and how organizations ultimately leverage, reward and recognize the talents of all.
Henry Ford sat on his workbench and sighed. A year earlier, he had personally built 13,000 Model Ts with his own hands. Fashioning lugnuts and tie rods by hand, Ford was loath to ask for help. Sure, there were things about the car that he didn’t quite understand. This explains the lack of reliable navigation systems in the Model T. But Ford persevered because he knew that unless he did everything, he could not reliably call these cars his own.
“Unless my own personal toil is responsible for it, it may as well be called a Hyundai,” Ford remarked at the time.
The preceding may sound unfamiliar because it is categorically untrue. And also monumentally stupid. Henry Ford didn’t build all those cars by hand. He had help and plenty of it. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, Henry Ford opened up the most technologically advanced assembly line the world had ever seen. Built on the premise that work can be chopped up into digestible pieces and completed by many men better than one, the line ushered in an age of unparalleled productivity.
Today, an attorney refers business because he can’t do everything the client asks of him.
There are three reasons why this is way dumber than a made-up Henry Ford story…